Mitt Romney has selected House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis) as his running mate, and unveiled the ticket at an event in Norfolk, Va. Saturday morning.

The move is a bold choice for Romney and one that a number of conservatives had urged him to make in recent weeks, with some of the loudest calls coming from the pages of the Weekly Standard and The Wall Street ournal. At about 3 a.m., a new website, Romneyryan.com, was launched , paid for by the Romney campaign.

Wisconsin, Ryan’s home state, has been ground zero for one of the major fights over public-sector unions — and it’s a state where, after Scott Walker defied a gubernatorial recall effort, Republicans are hoping to succeed in the fall. He is the first House member to be selected as a vice presidential contender since Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.

Late Friday night, the announcement was previewed in a press release from the Romney campaign and a tweet from Romney’s communications director. The Ryan unveiling at9 a.m. Saturday morning as Romney, with the 42-year-old congressman by his side, marked the beginning of four-day bus tour through Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Ohio.

Late Friday night, as speculation grew that Ryan was the pick, a source deeply involved in the vetting process said “the obvious clue is in the Romney press release” — alluding to the Norfolk event taking place at the USS Wisconsin.

Pressed, this source said: “All signs point to Ryan.”

The same source indicated that Romney had made his decision some time ago and that the other finalists had been playing the role of decoys.

By announcing now, at a moment when he’s dropping in the polls and facing rising criticism, Romney has the opportunity to change the conversation about his campaign. And in tapping Ryan, who is serving his 7th term in the House, the GOP nominee will immediately put a stop to conservative second-guessing about his campaign’s strategy. The young wonk, a Jack Kemp protege and fiscally conservative crusader, will galvanize many on the right who had been squawking the loudest about Romney.

But by tapping Ryan, Romney also is taking a significant risk. The congressman’s calling card is his “roadmap,” a budget reform proposal that would turn Medicare into a voucher program for future recipients. In the days leading up to Ryan’s pick, a number of GOP strategists working on 2012 campaigns said that putting Ryan on the ticket could give Democrats a weapon with which to attack down-ballot Republicans.

“I can’t remember the last election the GOP won when the issue dominating the discussion was entitlements,” said one veteran Republican strategist.

Meanwhile, as word of Ryan’s likely selection spread early Saturday morning, Democrats were all but giddy.

“Vice presidential nominees almost never matter,” said Bill Burton, who helps lead President Obama’s super PAC. “But if it’s the author of the most anti-middle class budget ever, this one does.”

Sources said that Reince Priebus, a fellow Wisconsin native and chairman of the Republican National Committee, had been prepping for Ryan’s selection for the last few days. And sources said that some of the other candidates started getting calls from Romney letting them know they wouldn’t make the ticket, although Romney didn’t indicate who would.

Attention has centered in the past week on former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman and Ryan as finalists.

Marco Rubio and Chris Christie were also still said to be in the final mix, and a number of Republicans stressed that there could still be a dark horse who emerges, as has happened during the last few rounds of GOP running-mate selections.

Rubio and Portman got phone calls Friday night from Romney informing him that they were not the pick, according to sources familiar with the conversations.

Romney himself seemed to offer a clue about where he was leaning earlier last week, telling NBC’s Chuck Todd in an interview on Thursday he was interested in a VP choice who has a “vision for the country…[who] adds something [to] the political discourse about the direction of the country.”

For Ryan, it will be a swift introduction to the heat lamp of national politics on a far bigger stage than one on which he’s ever performed. At a Bloomberg View breakfast a few months ago in New York City, Ryan praised Romney as a regular guy, but used terms similar to ones the Democrats have used as a pejorative — calling him “earnest” and something of a “throwback to the 1950s.”

Going a Sarah Palin route is stylistically unlike Romney, who is known for caution. But the GOP standard bearer is facing increasing calls from conservatives to go for a bolder option, such as a Ryan or a Rubio, over a safe option, such as a Portman or a Pawlenty.

On Friday evening, as Romney planned to kick off his bus tour, intense jockeying was going on for an early guess as to the identity of the VP choice. Pawlenty was in New Hampshire for Romney campaign events. A plane that flew from Boston to Wisconsin, Ryan’s home state, was being monitored closely.

The Weekly Standard’s William Kristol and Stephen Hayes, two advocates for a bolder choice, reported late Friday night that a number of signs pointed to preparations for a Ryan rollout, although they cautioned it could simply be a head-fake by a campaign looking to misdirect the press.

For Romney, the VP choice will be a chance to reset his campaign and represent it to the public, after a rocky July that has seen his personal negative ratings climb. He has faced a barrage of attacks on the airwaves and in earned media from Democrats.

They are taking a toll — a string of national polls showed Romney trailing President Obama by high single digits this week.

What are everyone's thoughts on the Ryan pick? Personally, I don't know enough about him as of yet

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

August 13th, 2012, 12:53 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Mitt Romney picks Paul Ryan as running mate

I like what he has to say, but I'm not crazy about his appearance. I'm digging him more and more the more I see him. I really like that he takes the fight to Barak Obama, and doesn't sit and wait like Mitt does. Mitt gets put on the defensive too easily, and he looks wrong on issues that, IMO, he's clearly right about. Ryan sort of takes care of that. He's not easily distracted and moved off message like Romney, and he wants to do two things that this country desperately needs right now:

1) Balance the budget, and2) Close tax loopholes

August 13th, 2012, 1:03 pm

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: Mitt Romney picks Paul Ryan as running mate

So far he speaks with authority and integrity unlike our current VP, and he does it without a teleprompter, so this could be a very exciting pick.

From what I hear he is a man of integrity, which Washington has been needing for a VERY long time.

_________________Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2

August 13th, 2012, 2:10 pm

TheRealWags

Megatron

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12509

Re: Mitt Romney picks Paul Ryan as running mate

wjb21ndtown wrote:

he wants to do two things that this country desperately needs right now:

1) Balance the budget, and2) Close tax loopholes

That might be all well and good, but I (still) think the main questions are HOW does he plan on balancing the budget. And WHICH "loopholes" are they going to close?

WarEr4Christ wrote:

From what I hear he is a man of integrity, which Washington has been needing for a VERY long time.

With respect, he's a career politician at this point, he is just like the rest of Washington: bought, paid for and a liar IMO.

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

August 13th, 2012, 2:31 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9967Location: Dallas

Re: Mitt Romney picks Paul Ryan as running mate

Mixed. I like his budget focus, however, I can see this turning into a battle over entitlements and when does the GOP ever win an election over entitlements?

Mixed. I like his budget focus, however, I can see this turning into a battle over entitlements and when does the GOP ever win an election over entitlements?

It depends on how it's portrayed. Medicare will be bankrupt by 2024 if left alone. Obama took 700billion from it for Obamacare and expanded medicaid. Paul's plan took 700 billion but transforms it into medicare advantage for anyone under 55 in order to preserve the system. Romney's modified plan doesn't take the 700billion, but we don't know exactly how it'd fund the changes yet. Regardless, doing something is better than nothing. Everyone on medicaid is going to force state's to raise taxes once the federal funding lowers. It's not a winning solution.

Republican's don't ever win the argument because liberals just put fingers in their ears and yell "They want to get rid of entitlements" over and over. They think raising taxes on the rich is going to solve everything, but the math doesn't add up. If we want to save the programs, they need changes. We can argue over how, but ignoring them only insures they will eventually disappear because we can't afford them.

August 13th, 2012, 3:11 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Mitt Romney picks Paul Ryan as running mate

TheRealWags wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

he wants to do two things that this country desperately needs right now:

1) Balance the budget, and2) Close tax loopholes

That might be all well and good, but I (still) think the main questions are HOW does he plan on balancing the budget. And WHICH "loopholes" are they going to close?

To be honest, I really don't give a chit how they balance the budget, as long as it gets done. They want to cancel and modify some social entitlement programs, which is fine with me. I like his plan to help save medicare (reduce spending by $700 billion and give a voucher system), and I'm guessing they want to do something similar to what Bush wanted to do with Social Security.

I'm so sick of Liberals shouting WE CAN'T PRIVITIZE SOCIAL SECURITY... LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO THE STOCK MARKET.

First of all, they only want to "privatize" social security to the tune of around 3% initially. They want some of the money that YOU'RE putting into social security to stay WITH YOU, rather than this entire Ponzi scheme that's currently on the books. I don't think that 3% would really hurt anyone, and, the stock market has recovered to the tune of around 85%. At the end of the day, you're talking about a .5% difference, and it would be more stable with savings account, and has the potential to be a huge benefit. Further, if 100% of the working people had a 3% stake in the stock market in mutual funds, it would help stabilize the market.

TheRealWags wrote:

With respect, he's a career politician at this point, he is just like the rest of Washington: bought, paid for and a liar IMO.

I don't know about that Wags. By all accounts he's one of the good guys that actually tries to get stuff done, and tries to do stuff right. He actually WORKS in D.C. (meaning, he doesn't take every opportunity to run home and skirt his job).

njroar wrote:

Pablo wrote:

Mixed. I like his budget focus, however, I can see this turning into a battle over entitlements and when does the GOP ever win an election over entitlements?

It depends on how it's portrayed. Medicare will be bankrupt by 2024 if left alone. Obama took 700billion from it for Obamacare and expanded medicaid. Paul's plan took 700 billion but transforms it into medicare advantage for anyone under 55 in order to preserve the system. Romney's modified plan doesn't take the 700billion, but we don't know exactly how it'd fund the changes yet. Regardless, doing something is better than nothing. Everyone on medicaid is going to force state's to raise taxes once the federal funding lowers. It's not a winning solution.

Republican's don't ever win the argument because liberals just put fingers in their ears and yell "They want to get rid of entitlements" over and over. They think raising taxes on the rich is going to solve everything, but the math doesn't add up. If we want to save the programs, they need changes. We can argue over how, but ignoring them only insures they will eventually disappear because we can't afford them.

I don't think Pablo is arguing whether it is right to reduce entitlements or not, just that you can't get elected on a platform of any modification of an entitlement program. It's a tough sell. Everyone knows that we give away too much, but no one wants to give up any portion of their piece of the pie. Even if they say "it will be gone by X date" most people want to wait until the day before, not 12 years prior, to modify their program. They know they can get their "goodies" for four more years, so why vote Obama out now? That's what they're going to have to get across... and it leads into a complicated discussion that most people aren't educated enough to understand - weakening of the dollar, possibility of not being able to borrow from China, increased deficit, etc. Most people think that's all hogwash and we can borrow forever.

August 13th, 2012, 3:31 pm

TheRealWags

Megatron

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12509

Re: Mitt Romney picks Paul Ryan as running mate

wjb21ndtown wrote:

TheRealWags wrote:

With respect, he's a career politician at this point, he is just like the rest of Washington: bought, paid for and a liar IMO.

I don't know about that Wags. By all accounts he's one of the good guys that actually tries to get stuff done, and tries to do stuff right. He actually WORKS in D.C. (meaning, he doesn't take every opportunity to run home and skirt his job).

He's been in office since 1999, IMO too long and therefore part of the problem and reason for where we are today.

A couple examples:

Voted FOR PATRIOT ACT (also voted to make it permanent)Voted FOR Expansion of Medicare Part DVoted FOR Wall Street bailoutVoted FOR flag burning Constitutional Amendment (free speech???)

He signed the Grover Norquist 'anti-tax' pledge. (I am VERY interested to see how R&R plan on balancing the budget without raising any taxes...also, doesn't closing 'loopholes' constitute a tax hike / increase in some Conservative circles???)

A couple of his votes that I do agree with:

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientationVoted YES on protecting the Pledge of AllegianceVoted NO on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers programVoted YES on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

August 13th, 2012, 5:03 pm

TheRealWags

Megatron

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12509

Re: Mitt Romney picks Paul Ryan as running mate

More info on Mr Ryan (opinion piece):

Quote:

Understanding the Ryan planBy Matt Miller, Published: August 12

The striking thing about Paul Ryan’s ascent is the gulf between his proposals and the way the media have characterized them. Since Mitt Romney named Ryan to the ticket on Saturday, the news has been filled with talk of the “ fiscal conservative ” (NPR) “ intent on erasing deficits ” (New York Times) who has become “ the intellectual heart of the Republican Party’s movement to slash deficits” ( The Post). All of this is demonstrably false. Ryan’s con has succeeded largely because Democrats haven’t sensed the political salience of assailing his plans from the right ; instead, they’ve chosen to slam only Ryan’s regressive priorities and Medicare scheme.

This strategic error allows the presumption that Ryan, and thus Romney, are the true apostles of fiscal responsibility in this race, a value important to the voters who will decide November’s outcome. But the con has worked in part because budgets make journalists’ eyes glaze over, and once the phony Ryan meme took hold two years ago it became hard to dislodge.

Now that Ryan is on the ticket, however, the stakes are too high not to expose the fraud. In that spirit (and at the risk of taxing readers who’ve heard my Ryan fetishes before), I offer one wonk’s guide to what every citizen should know about Ryan’s plans. Otherwise, like the talented Mr. Ripley, Ryan will continue to get away with (fiscal) murder.

Ryan is not a “fiscal conservative.” A fiscal conservative pays for the government he wants. Ryan never has. His early “Roadmap for America’s Future” didn’t balance the budget until the 2060s and added $60 trillion to the national debt. Ryan’s revised plan, passed by the House in 2011, wouldn’t reach balance until the 2030s while adding $14 trillion in debt. It adds $6 trillion in debt over the next decade alone — yet Republicans had the chutzpah to say they wouldn’t raise the debt limit! (I remain mystified why President Obama never hammered home this reckless contradiction by insisting that the GOP “raise the debt ceiling just by the amount it would take to accommodate the debt in Paul Ryan’s budget.”)

Ryan is an extreme “small government conservative.” Ronald Reagan ran government at 22 percent of gross domestic product when our population was much younger. Ryan and Romney want to run government at 20 percent of GDP even as the number of Americans on Social Security and Medicare doubles. Even if we slow these programs’ growth, it’s impossible to shrink the federal role in an aging society this sharply without eliminating vast swaths of what Americans have come to expect from government — not to mention shortchanging already lagging investments in research and development and infrastructure. Over time, Ryan’s “vision” would decimate most federal activities beyond Social Security, Medicare and defense.

When I asked Ryan last October why he thought — in his words — “the historic size [of government as a share of GDP], or smaller,” was sound policy when we’d shortly be doubling the number of seniors on the biggest federal programs, he replied, “Because we can’t keep doing everything for everybody in this country.”

Ryan says that on our current path we will “transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.” But I’ve never understood what hammock Ryan is talking about. If programs for seniors haven’t been a “hammock” until now, simply doubling the number of people eligible for them can’t turn them into a “hammock” tomorrow. We have an aging population challenge and a health-cost challenge. We don’t have a “hammock” challenge.

Ryan is not a truthteller. Ryan boasted on Saturday that he and Romney have “the courage to tell you the truth.” But political courage means telling your base things they don’t want to hear. The truth Ryan and Romney won’t tell — which explains the staggering debt in Ryan’s plan — is that taxes need to rise as the boomers retire. (The truth Democrats won’t tell is that raising taxes on the rich alone won’t suffice.)

But on Medicare. . . I can hear the Democratic groans coming, but Ryan deserves credit here. Ryan leaves Medicare on its current outsized trajectory for the next decade, as spending soars from $560 billion to $950 billion. Because of our uniquely inefficient health-care sector, which leaves us spending twice per capita what other wealthy nations spend, the voucher he calls for thereafter would suffice to buy seniors terrific care everywhere but here. Even if his approach is imperfect, Ryan is right to challenge our Medical Industrial Complex to change.

So, Democrats, if you must demagogue (and I know you must), I say: Demagogue responsibly. Blast the GOP for trimming Medicare growth to cut taxes for the rich — but don’t damn the idea of slowing Medicare’s growth “the right way.” In a few years the cash going to Medicare that’s not needed for quality care will be the reason we’re too strapped to invest in poor kids.

Matt Miller is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and co-host of public radio’s “Left, Right & Center.” He writes a weekly online column for The Post.

All that said, I think Romney said that they would run on his plan, not Ryan's..though I'm sure there are similarities between the two.

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

August 13th, 2012, 5:15 pm

I.E.

Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pmPosts: 408

Re: Mitt Romney picks Paul Ryan as running mate

I'll keep it simple:

1. If you were from Wisconsin, you'd stay in DC more too!

2. Ryan's fiscal conservatism actually appeals to me. Where we differ, though, is that he's a a hardcore social darwinist. I've posted elsewhere that, while I might agree with him in a lot of areas on principle - I definitely don't believe this is the time to be "taking a bone away from a hungry dog"... because doing so is not going to be without significant pain. We invest many trillions in external defense, for our safety - I suggest we continue to spend it on internal defense as well, for our safety.

August 13th, 2012, 8:19 pm

Blueskies

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3101

Re: Mitt Romney picks Paul Ryan as running mate

Ryan's plan isn't "taking a bone away from a hungry dog" -- his most aggressive stance, that on medicare, isn't all that aggressive and, what's more, wouldn't affect anyone over the age of 55 assuming it was passed this year.

Ryan is largely part of the Washington establishment. The guy's budget hawkish is extremely overrated -- it wouldn't be balanced for 30 years or so. He also wants to cut taxes further without matching spending cuts.

Better pick than Sarah Palin to be sure, but people are way overrating this guy. He isn't good enough to get me to vote.

August 13th, 2012, 8:41 pm

TheRealWags

Megatron

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12509

Re: Mitt Romney picks Paul Ryan as running mate

Hmm, this could get really interesting...

Fox News wrote:

Videos surface of Dems, including President Obama, praising Paul RyanPublished August 14, 2012

FoxNews.com

Before Paul Ryan was pinned as an "extreme" and "radical" ideologue, Democrats actually kind of liked the guy.

Several clips of prominent Democrats -- including President Obama -- praising Ryan have surged through the Internet in the days since Mitt Romney tapped the Wisconsin congressman as his running mate. They once called his ideas "serious" and "honest," which is not what the Obama campaign and its affiliates are saying about him now.

Arguably the most robust praise came from Erskine Bowles, the White House chief of staff under former President Bill Clinton who recently co-chaired President Obama's deficit-reduction committee.

In a late 2011 talk at the University of North Carolina, Bowles told the audience "this guy is amazing."

"I always thought I was okay with arithmetic. This guy can run circles around me, and he is honest, he is straightforward, he is sincere," Bowles said. "And the budget he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, honest, serious budget."

Bowles went on to criticize the spending plans that had come out of the Obama White House.

North Carolina's News & Observer newspaper dug up the rest of that speech, finding that at one point, Bowles also called Ryan's controversial Medicare overhaul "a pretty radical change" that he'd rather avoid.

But in a March 29, 2012, PBS interview, Bowles said that Ryan's plan to offer government payments to buy private insurance should nevertheless remain an "option" going forward. He even said "you would want to consider" a newer version of the Ryan plan that lets people keep traditional Medicare as an alternative.

In 2010 on the same program, Bowles said: "I wish we had more people like Paul who are thinkers and do their homework."

Around the same time, Obama was similarly upbeat on Ryan's role in the Republican Party.

In 2010, Obama said at a Republican retreat that Ryan had "made a serious proposal" with his budget. Obama criticized the idea of giving "vouchers" for Medicare, but acknowledged the need to address the deficit spending that Medicare and Medicaid fuel.

Romney, though, is pointing most prominently to Ryan's work with Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden to make the case that Ryan is more bipartisan than he's made out to be by Democrats.

Ryan and Wyden late last year drafted a new proposal for Medicare -- tweaking Ryan's old plan by offering seniors a choice between government-subsidized private insurance and regular Medicare.

"One of the things I like about Paul Ryan is he's demonstrated over his years there an ability to work across the aisle to find people who have common purpose who may disagree on some issues but find enough common ground to get things done," Romney said Monday. "And, for instance, him coming together with a plan to save Medicare for future generations, no change to current Medicare beneficiaries or people near retirement but for future beneficiaries, he and Sen. Wyden have come together. This is the kind of bipartisanship we need more of, not less."

In an interview this summer on a program called Medscape, Wyden discussed that proposal, saying: "It really starts from the proposition that no one would go out and buy a house without some idea of knowing what they're paying for.

"And much of what we're going to have to do with Medicare is to be sure that traditional Medicare with its purchasing power can be maintained, while at the same time we offer private sector choices, so that the two will strengthen each other. And in that sense, we recognize that much of the Medicare debate is not at all ideological," he said.

According to The Huffington Post, Wyden is pushing back on some of Romney's claims, particularly one that Wyden and Ryan helped "co-lead" a piece of legislation -- since they wrote a policy paper, not a bill.

Then there's the off-mic moment caught in 2011 between Clinton and Ryan backstage at an event.

In the cellphone footage, aired by ABC News at the time, Clinton said he hoped a recent Democratic congressional victory wouldn't be used "as an excuse to do nothing."

"My guess is it's going to sink into paralysis is what's going to happen," Ryan told the former president. "And you know the math. I mean, it's just we knew we were putting ourselves out there. But you've got to start this. You've got to get out there. You've got to get this thing moving."

Clinton opened the door, saying: "If you ever want to talk about it ..."

With respect, he's a career politician at this point, he is just like the rest of Washington: bought, paid for and a liar IMO.

I don't know about that Wags. By all accounts he's one of the good guys that actually tries to get stuff done, and tries to do stuff right. He actually WORKS in D.C. (meaning, he doesn't take every opportunity to run home and skirt his job).

He's been in office since 1999, IMO too long and therefore part of the problem and reason for where we are today.

A couple examples:

Voted FOR PATRIOT ACT (also voted to make it permanent)Voted FOR Expansion of Medicare Part DVoted FOR Wall Street bailoutVoted FOR flag burning Constitutional Amendment (free speech???)

He signed the Grover Norquist 'anti-tax' pledge. (I am VERY interested to see how R&R plan on balancing the budget without raising any taxes...also, doesn't closing 'loopholes' constitute a tax hike / increase in some Conservative circles???)

A couple of his votes that I do agree with:

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientationVoted YES on protecting the Pledge of AllegianceVoted NO on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers programVoted YES on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids

I don't mind his voting record at all. I agree with the Patriot Act vote. Most people agreed with the Act itself, but worried that its implementation was going to be taken to far. IMO it hasn't worked out that way, and we've been relatively incident free for 10+ years. I'd say it was a success.

The expansion of Medicare Part D seemed necessary due to the prescription drug problem. The only other real way that I saw around it would have been for the govt. to directly subsidize the research for the drugs. No one can really prove that the drug companies "price gouge," and we have a definite need for (some) prescription drugs. I do think we over-prescribe, but that's a whole other issue.

The Wall St. Bailout was necessary. It was the collapse of Leman that killed the stock market, and we were on the verge of literal economic collapse. The auto bailout I don't agree with, but to each their own...

I'm all about freedom of speech, but at some point, if you don't like the country, just fricken leave. I would never lobby or vote to have flag burning banned, but I don't mind if someone else does. It doesn't offend me that someone respects our flag more than a small, small portion of free speech.

I.E. wrote:

I'll keep it simple:1. If you were from Wisconsin, you'd stay in DC more too!

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I happen to like Wisconsin a lot. It's like a more Conservative Michigan. Virtually same weather and stuff going on.

August 14th, 2012, 12:06 pm

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: Mitt Romney picks Paul Ryan as running mate

It's taken from someone who already lives on the plantation (Illinois) and is green with envy because Wisconsin is now in the black on it's budgets, and has chosen to keep the ideas of their current govenor who is bringing Wisconsin back.

Not to mention the shear beauty of the State, as compared to, oh I don't know, Chicago. I'll take Wisconsin any day! Chicago is loud, dirty, filled with graffiti, trash, and a rude big city attitude.

No worries, theirs still hope that one day he will see the light! :p

_________________Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2

August 14th, 2012, 3:45 pm

TheRealWags

Megatron

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12509

Re: Mitt Romney picks Paul Ryan as running mate

wjb21ndtown wrote:

I don't mind his voting record at all. I agree with the Patriot Act vote. Most people agreed with the Act itself, but worried that its implementation was going to be taken to far. IMO it hasn't worked out that way, and we've been relatively incident free for 10+ years. I'd say it was a success.

The Patriot Act was the typical half-assed, scared in-the-moment, we HAVE to do something reaction our Congress is known for. We were 'relatively incident free' for over 200 years without it. It goes directly against the Constitution and I'm appalled (yet not surprised) that no one has made a Constitutional challenge on it.

wjb21ndtown wrote:

The expansion of Medicare Part D seemed necessary due to the prescription drug problem. The only other real way that I saw around it would have been for the govt. to directly subsidize the research for the drugs. No one can really prove that the drug companies "price gouge," and we have a definite need for (some) prescription drugs. I do think we over-prescribe, but that's a whole other issue.

Passing it without paying for and adding tons of deficit is NOT what a fiscal conservative does IMO.

wjb21ndtown wrote:

The Wall St. Bailout was necessary. It was the collapse of Leman that killed the stock market, and we were on the verge of literal economic collapse. The auto bailout I don't agree with, but to each their own...

Again, not what a fiscal conservative does. Spend, spend, spend. And NOW we're supposed to believe he wants to balance the budget and he's serious about reducing the deficit?

wjb21ndtown wrote:

I'm all about freedom of speech, but at some point, if you don't like the country, just fricken leave. I would never lobby or vote to have flag burning banned, but I don't mind if someone else does. It doesn't offend me that someone respects our flag more than a small, small portion of free speech.

Not saying it 'offends' me, just saying that as a Constitutionalist, you don't vote to limit free speech...at all. Again, not what I would think a Conservative would be about.